If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other APIs, I
can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one or more
days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.

In almost every case, access to the source code for DEFINITIVE documentation
(code) would have allowed me to spend my time on something productive
instead.

In the few times I've had a chance to use WebKit, the source has proved
invaluable to tracking down strange bugs.

> If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other
> APIs, I
> can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one
> or more
> days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.

> If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other
> APIs, I
> can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one
> or more
> days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.

Yes. And at the same time Apple would have given away it's "crown
jewels" making them, for all intents and purposes mostly worthless.

If pursuing that idea has merit for you, however, I would encourage
you to pursue it farther in an appropriate forum.

> If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other
> APIs, I
> can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one
> or more
> days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.

Might I suggest future posts contain less rant and more technical
relevance? This strongly paints you as little more than a troll.

Honestly, it looks like they're starting off by doing the equivalent
of open-sourcing Core Foundation (the Base Class Libraries). Which
Apple did years ago via Darwin.

Although it'll be interesting to see how much of WPF actually makes
it to open-source :)

On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Scott Thompson wrote:

>
> On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Mac Developer wrote:
> >> As anyone who has used .Net knows, it's a nice programming
>> environment with
>> good APIs.>
> Not exactly true. I've used .Net, don't care much for the
> programming environment and would describe the APIs as... adequate.>>
>> Here is one more thing to make me more likely to choose it for future
>> projects. Microsoft has announced that they'll be including source
>> code for
>> .Net.
>>
>> http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing
>> -the-source-code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx>
> Certainly an interesting choice. Although, if a bit full of
> conspiracy theory, I suspect that the post at http://www.eweek.com/
> article2/0,1759,2191754,00.asp probably has a kernel of truth.
>
> >> If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other
>> APIs, I
>> can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one
>> or more
>> days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.>
> Yes. And at the same time Apple would have given away it's "crown
> jewels" making them, for all intents and purposes mostly worthless.
>
> If pursuing that idea has merit for you, however, I would encourage
> you to pursue it farther in an appropriate forum.
>
> Scott

> If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other
> APIs, I
> can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one
> or more
> days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.

[moerator] This isn't directly related to Cocoa development issues.
Rather it is an advocacy issue. The list has been over it before. Best
take the discussion elsewhere or to contact Apple directly with these
types of questions ,and file Radar enhancement request.

Ultimately, if the doc is poor, that is the easiest thing to fix (far
easier than getting the source published). File a bug, we pay
attention to them.